Re: Standards To Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Sexual Harassment Involving Unaccompanied Children, RIN 0970-AC61
|
|
- Juliana Wells
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 (202) (202) (fax) 1301 K Street, NW Suite 850, East Tower Washington, DC February 23, 2015 Office of Refugee Resettlement Department of Health and Human Services 370 L Enfant Promenade SW, 8th Floor West Washington, DC Attn: Elizabeth Sohn Re: Standards To Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Sexual Harassment Involving Unaccompanied Children, RIN 0970-AC61 Americans United for Separation of Church and State (Americans United) submits the following comments to the interim final rule (IFR), Standards To Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Sexual Harassment Involving Unaccompanied Children, from the Department of Health and Human Services (Department) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which was published in the Federal Register on December 24, We limit our comments to the religious exemption described in Subpart J. Religious organizations have a longstanding tradition of providing social services, including in some cases, with the use of government funds. But, traditionally, religious organizations that have accepted government funds to provide services have played by the same rules as other non-religious providers. This history demonstrates that exemptions, such as the one proposed in the IFR, are not necessary for government collaboration with faith-based groups. This exemption is not just unnecessary, but also potentially harmful. It would risk denying the unaccompanied children (UCs) currently housed in the ORR facilities a particularly vulnerable population with timely access to the critical medical services they deserve and that otherwise would be guaranteed to them by law. Accordingly, we recommend that the Department remove the religious exemption in Subpart J or, at a minimum, narrow the exemption. Americans United Founded in 1947, Americans United is a nonpartisan educational organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure true religious freedom for all Americans. We fight to protect the right of individuals and religious 1 Standards To Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Sexual Harassment Involving Unaccompanied Children, 79 Fed. Reg. 77,767 (Dec. 24, 2014) (to be codified as 45 C.F.R pt. 411).
2 communities to worship or not as they see fit without government interference, compulsion, support, or disparagement. Americans United has more than 120,000 members and supporters across the country. Americans United supports the use of reasonable and appropriately tailored accommodations to ease real burdens on the practice of religion in certain circumstances. Such accommodations, however, must not foster the advancement of religion, nor may they be so broad as to negatively impact innocent third parties. Unfortunately, the IFR is not justified. It is not aimed at lifting a substantial religious burden and would cause harm to others. Background In 2012, the Agency on Children and Families (ACF) issued a new policy governing their partnership with faith-based organizations. 2 The policy provided guidance on ways that faithbased organizations could remain eligible to receive federal grants even if they object to providing certain services. The ACF s policy stated that it would consider any combination of approaches that would further this goal, but specifically outlined three options: 1) the faithbased grantee could apply as a sub-grantee, operating in conjunction with other sub-grantees that would provide the services to which they object; 2) the faith-based grantee could apply in a consortium with other partner organizations that agree to provide those services; or 3) the faith-based grantee could notify the agency office in charge of the program, shifting the responsibility for securing services to the government. The policy announcement came on the heels of unwarranted criticism surrounding the Department s statement that it had a strong preference to grant federal contracts only to organizations that would provide the full panoply of services required by a grant, rather than to those who would not. 3 There was no opportunity at that time to submit comments to ACF regarding this policy. We offer these comments now because we believe that the IFR, which mirrors the 2012 policy, could lead to real hardships for third parties. The Religious Exemption Could Cause Real Harm The IFR incorporates the same three options for a religious exemption as outlined in the ACF s policy in Accordingly, faith-based organizations seeking federal grants to provide medical and mental health services for UCs suffering from traumatizing experiences of sexual abuse and harassment may be able to refuse to provide certain services or even referrals for those services if they agree to operate as sub-grantee, apply for a grant as part of a consortium, or even just notify ORR of their objection. The current exemption as articulated in the IFR is problematic. Allowing faith-based organizations to operate as sub-grantees or as part of a consortium even though they will not 2 ADMIN. FOR CHILDREN & FAMILIES, ACF Policy on Grants to Faith-Based Organizations, 3 See Am. Civil Liberties Union of Mass. v. Sebelius, 705 F.3d 44, 50 (1st Cir. 2013). 2
3 perform all of the grant requirements would threaten the UCs abilities to gain timely access to important medical services, such as emergency contraception or pregnancy-related services. Such an arrangement is unlikely to work, as it would require an extraordinarily high level of coordination among the other grantees or sub-grantees to prevent the UCs from receiving gaps in coverage of services. Issues such as communication and transportation between service providers could easily stand in the way of a UC receiving timely services. The government should not adopt a policy that could put the needs of the UCs at risk. Such an arrangement also places the UCs in the uncomfortable and stigmatizing position of being denied needed services based on the religious beliefs of the government grantee. It could also have a chilling effect on UCs coming forward with requests for medical and mental health services. Yet, it is the exemption s third option that presents the most potential harm to UCs, because it fully exempts organizations from providing medical care and shifts that responsibility entirely to the federal government. The organizations competing for these grants are supposed to be the entities most qualified to provide direct medical and social services, not the government. Indeed, that is the purpose of the grant. Allowing faith-based organizations to provide some, but not all, of the essential medical services to UCs undermines the purpose of the law, which is to ensure that children suffering from sexual abuse receive care as soon as possible. When UCs require immediate and seamless coverage for time-sensitive medical services, it is unwise to require them to jump through additional hoops to gain those services. And, it is unfair to place additional barriers before them simply because of the religious beliefs of others. The Religious Exemption Is Constitutionally Problematic The Religious Exemption Is Not Required By the Free Exercise Clause or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act The religious exemption provided under this rule is not mandated by either the Free Exercise Clause or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In accordance with the Free Exercise Clause, religious beliefs do not excuse compliance with valid and neutral laws of general applicability. 4 Courts deem laws neutral unless they target religious beliefs or if the object of [the] law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation. 5 The grant program, on its face, does not single out religious organizations for disfavored treatment, nor does it contain a masked hostility towards religion. Accordingly, no accommodation is necessary under the Free Exercise Clause. RFRA provides a different standard: it prohibits the government from substantially burden[ing] a person s exercise of religion unless the government can demonstrate that the burden is justified by a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering 4 Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 533 (1993); Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990). 5 Lukumi, 508 U.S. at
4 that interest. 6 RFRA is not triggered when there is just the slightest obstacle to religious exercise. 7 Indeed, it is a difficult threshold to cross, and faith-based organizations objecting on religious grounds to the terms of a government grant do not meet that threshold. The terms of a federal grant do not coerce religious organizations to violate their religious beliefs. If the organization does not want to follow a grant s terms, it can simply reject the grant and continue to operate in ways that it sees fit with its own funds. Faith-based organizations like all other organizations have no right to receive a government grant or to dictate the terms of any grant they receive. Moreover, it is counterintuitive to create a federally-funded program to provide important services to an underserved community and then carve out exemptions that could put members of that very community at risk of receiving those services. Federal funds are better spent to fund an organization that is willing to carry out the program s mission completely. The Religious Exemption Could Violate the Establishment Clause The religious exemption described in the IFR may pose problems for the Establishment Clause. First, the Establishment Clause prohibits religious accommodations that harm third parties. 8 Although the government may offer religious accommodations even where it is not required to do so by the Constitution, 9 its ability to provide religious accommodations is not unlimited: At some point, accommodation may devolve into an unlawful fostering of religion. 10 For example, in Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 11 the Supreme Court explained that legislative exemptions for religious organizations that exceed free exercise requirements will be upheld only when they do not impose substantial burdens on nonbeneficiaries or they are designed to prevent potentially serious encroachments on protected religious freedoms. The type of exemption detailed in the IFR could cause real harm for UCs and impede their access to important and time-sensitive medical services. The Establishment Clause, therefore, mandates that the exemption be removed or, at a minimum, narrowed to prevent that harm. Second, the exemption unconstitutionally delegates the authority to exclude certain services from the grant based on religious belief, and in doing so provides a significant symbolic benefit to religion. 12 Such an exemption allows for those organizations to impose their religious beliefs on others. 13 And, it sends a message of government endorsement of those religious beliefs U.S.C. Sec. 2000bb-1(b). 7 Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752, 761 (7th Cir. 2003). 8 See, e.g., Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 722 (2005)(stating that a religious accommodation must be measured so that it does not override other significant interests. );Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 U.S. 703 (1985). 9 Of course, in some instances exemptions may be constitutionally permissible but unwise public policy. 10 Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted) U.S. 1, 18 n. 8 (1989). 12 See Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, (1982). 13 See Sebelius, 821 F. Supp. 2d 474, (D. Mass. 2012), vacated as moot by 705 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2013). (finding that the government s grant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops violated the Establishment Clause by appearing to endorse the organization s religious beliefs and allowing the organization to impose their religious beliefs on others.) 4
5 Conclusion The religious exemption in the IFR is not just unnecessary, but it also risks causing great harm to UCs. If the Department insists on providing an exemption, it must be more narrowly tailored. At a minimum, the ability to opt-out simply by notifying the government agency at the time a UC requests that service should be removed, and instead the organizations should be required to notify ORR of their objections at the time of application. Accordingly, ORR would be able to preemptively ensure that a proper network of providers is in place to assist UCs, so that they would not face any delay in receiving such services. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Maggie Garrett Elise Helgesen Aguilar 5
June 19, To Whom it May Concern:
(202) 466-3234 (phone) (202) 466-2587 (fax) info@au.org 1301 K Street, NW Suite 850, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 June 19, 2012 Attn: CMS-9968-ANPRM Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department
More informationSubmitted electronically via regulations.gov. Re: RFI Regarding Faith-Based Organizations (HHS-9928-RFI)
WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE OFFICE November 22, 2017 Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships Office of Intergovernmental and External Affairs U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence
More informationTestimony of. Rev. Barry W. Lynn. Submitted to
Testimony of Rev. Barry W. Lynn Executive Director of Americans United For Separation of Church and State Submitted to U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Written
More informationNovember 24, Dear Director Norton,
November 24, 2017 Jane E. Norton Director, Office of Intergovernmental & External Affairs Department of Health & Human Services Hubert H. Humphrey Building 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201
More informationReligion Clauses in the First Amendment
Religion Clauses in the First Amendment Establishment of Religion Clause Wall of separation quote not in the Constitution itself, but in Jefferson s writings. Reasons for Establishment Clause: Worldly
More informationINTRODUCTION HOW IS THIS TEXTBOOK DIFFERENT FROM TRADITIONAL CASEBOOKS?...VII ABOUT THE AUTHOR...XI SUMMARY OF CONTENTS... XIII
INTRODUCTION HOW IS THIS TEXTBOOK DIFFERENT FROM TRADITIONAL CASEBOOKS?...VII ABOUT THE AUTHOR...XI SUMMARY OF CONTENTS... XIII... XV TABLE OF CASES...XXI I. THE RELIGION CLAUSE(S): OVERVIEW...26 A. Summary...26
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
Nos. 13-354 & 13-356 In the Supreme Court of the United States KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS. CONESTOGA
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No CG-C ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION ETERNAL WORLD TELEVISION NETWORK, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. ) ) Civil Action No. 13-0521-CG-C SYLVIA M. BURWELL,
More informationCommittee: House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice
Nelson Tebbe, professor, Brooklyn Law School Committee: House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice Subject: Religious Freedom Legislation February 13, 2015 Thank you for giving
More informationDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. Administration for Children and Families
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 10/19/2015 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-26467, and on FDsys.gov 4184-01 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
More informationDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT U.S. REPATRIATION PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT U.S. REPATRIATION PROGRAM June 29, 2016 Presenter Elizabeth B. Russell Coordinator, U.S.
More informationNovember 24, 2017 [VIA ]
November 24, 2017 Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships Office of Intergovernmental and External Affairs U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Attention: RFI Regarding Faith-Based
More informationCase 4:12-cv Y Document 99 Filed 12/31/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID 2155
Case 4:12-cv-00314-Y Document 99 Filed 12/31/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID 2155 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF FORT WORTH,
More informationOctober 8, Comments on Proposed Rules on Coverage of Certain Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act
Office of the General Counsel 3211 FOURTH STREET NE WASHINGTON DC 20017-1194 202-541-3300 FAX 202-541-3337 October 8, 2014 Submitted Electronically Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Department of
More informationAccommodating the Accommodated? Not-For-Profits Challenges to the Contraception Mandate Exemptions
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Rochester, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 25, Number 1 (25.1.27) Feature Article Colleen Tierney Scarola* University of Denver, Sturm
More informationCase 3:12-cv MJR-PMF Document 83 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #806 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case 3:12-cv-01072-MJR-PMF Document 83 Filed 10/03/14 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #806 CYRIL B. KORTE, JANE E. KORTE, and KORTE & LUITJOHAN CONTRACTORS, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
More informationRFRA Is Not Needed: New York Land Use Regulations Accommodate Religious Use
Pace University DigitalCommons@Pace Pace Law Faculty Publications School of Law 7-23-1997 RFRA Is Not Needed: New York Land Use Regulations Accommodate Religious Use John R. Nolon Elisabeth Haub School
More informationTestimony of. Maggie Garrett Legislative Director Americans United For Separation of Church and State. Submitted to the
Testimony of Maggie Garrett Legislative Director Americans United For Separation of Church and State Submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution
More informationCase: 4:12-cv CEJ Doc. #: 19 Filed: 06/11/12 Page: 1 of 14 PageID #: 129
Case: 4:12-cv-00476-CEJ Doc. #: 19 Filed: 06/11/12 Page: 1 of 14 PageID #: 129 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION FRANK R. O BRIEN JR., ) O BRIEN INDUSTRIAL
More informationCase 2:12-cv JFC Document 152 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:12-cv-00207-JFC Document 152 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GENEVA COLLEGE; WAYNE L. HEPLER; THE SENECA HARDWOOD LUMBER COMPANY,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FRANCIS A. GILARDI, JR. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PHILIP M. GILARDI Civil Action No. FRESH UNLIMITED, INC., d/b/a FRESHWAY LOGISTICS, INC. vs. Plaintiffs, UNITED
More informationComments of EPIC 1 Department of Interior
COMMENTS OF THE ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER To THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Freedom of Information Act Regulations By notice published on September 13, 2012, the Department of the Interior
More informationCase 1:13-cv RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 16 THE C.W. ZUMBIEL CO. D/B/A ZUMBIEL PACKAGING, 2100 Gateway Blvd., Hebron, KY 41048 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
NOS. 14-1418, -1453, -1505, 15-35, -105, -119, & -191 In the Supreme Court of the United States DAVID A. ZUBIK, et al., v. Petitioners, SYLVIA BURWELL, et al., Respondents. On Writs of Certiorari to the
More informationIN THE UNITED STA I ES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STA I ES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION THE SCHOOL OF THE OZARKS, INC. d/b/a COLLEGE OF THE OZARKS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION FRANK R. O BRIEN JR., ) O BRIEN INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS, LLC, ) ) PLAINTIFFS, ) CASE NO. ) vs. ) COMPLAINT ) ) UNITED STATES
More informationDecember 16, Bill Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014
December 16, 2014 Phil Mendelson Chairman Council of the District of Columbia 1350 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 504 Washington, DC, 20004 pmendelson@dccouncil.us Via ElectronicMail RE: Bill 20-790 Reproductive
More informationCase: 3:12-cv bbc Document #: 28 Filed: 09/08/14 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Case: 3:12-cv-00946-bbc Document #: 28 Filed: 09/08/14 Page 1 of 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. and TRIANGLE FFRF, v. Plaintiffs, JOHN
More informationFree Exercise of Religion by Closely Held Corporations: Implications of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Free Exercise of Religion by Closely Held Corporations: Implications of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Cynthia Brown Legislative Attorney November 12, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov
More informationDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. Administration for Children and Families
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 06/15/2015 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2015-14465, and on FDsys.gov 4184-01 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
More informationCase: , 02/06/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 26-1, Page 1 of 9. No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-35105, 02/06/2017, ID: 10302890, DktEntry: 26-1, Page 1 of 9 No. 17-35105 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al. v. DONALD TRUMP, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
More informationProposed Rule on Participation by Religious Organizations in USAID Programs
May 9, 2011 Ari Alexander Director Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives U.S. Agency for International Development, Room 6.07 023 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523 Re: Proposed
More informationCase 3:12-cv MJR-PMF Document 2 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case 3:12-cv-01072-MJR-PMF Document 2 Filed 10/09/12 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CYRIL B. KORTE, JANE E. KORTE, and KORTE & LUITJOHAN CONTRACTORS,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION AMERICAN PULVERIZER CO., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 12-3459-CV-S-RED ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
More informationCase 5:10-cv M Document 7 Filed 11/09/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:10-cv-01186-M Document 7 Filed 11/09/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA MUNEER AWAD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. CIV-10-1186-M ) PAUL ZIRIAX,
More informationCase 1:12-cv JLK Document 70-1 Filed 03/16/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 12
Case 1:12-cv-01123-JLK Document 70-1 Filed 03/16/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge John L. Kane Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-1123 WILLIAM
More informationRecent Developments in Ethics: New ABA Model Rule 8.4(g): Is this Rule Good for Kansas? Suzanne Valdez
Recent Developments in Ethics: New ABA Model Rule 8.4(g): Is this Rule Good for Kansas? Suzanne Valdez May 17-18, 2018 University of Kansas School of Law New ABA Model Rule 8.4(g): Is This Ethics Rule
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 578 U. S. (2016) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the
More informationReferred to Committee on Judiciary
S.B. SENATE BILL NO. SENATOR HARDY MARCH, 0 JOINT SPONSOR: ASSEMBLYMAN NELSON Referred to Committee on Judiciary SUMMARY Prohibits state action from substantially burdening a person s exercise of religion
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WHEATON COLLEGE ) 501 College Avenue ) Wheaton, IL 60187-5593, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary ) of the United States
More informationReconciling Equal Protection and Religious Liberty
Home > Publications > Human Rights Magazine Home > 2013 (Vol. 39) > Vol. 39, No. 2 Religious Freedom > Reconciling Equal Protection and Religious Liberty Reconciling Equal Protection and Religious Liberty
More informationCase 2:12-cv SLB Document 14 Filed 03/22/12 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:12-cv-00501-SLB Document 14 Filed 03/22/12 Page 1 of 9 FILED 2012 Mar-22 AM 08:25 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
More informationNo. AMC3-SUP FOR THE APPELLATE MOOT COURT COLLEGIATE CHALLENGE JAMES INCANDENZA ENFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT
No. AMC3-SUP 2016-37-02 FOR THE APPELLATE MOOT COURT COLLEGIATE CHALLENGE JAMES INCANDENZA Petitioner, v. ENFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT Respondent. On Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:17-cv-02122 Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ROCHELLE GARZA, as guardian ad litem to unaccompanied minor J.D., on behalf of herself
More informationChairman Peter Mendelson 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 504 Washington, DC November 17, Dear Chairman Mendelson:
Chairman Peter Mendelson 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 504 Washington, DC 20004 November 17, 2014 Dear Chairman Mendelson: I write as one member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and not on
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Case 4:17-cv-02662 Document 67 Filed in TXSD on 12/07/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION HARVEST FAMILY CHURCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION
More informationCase 1:12-cv FB-RER Document 25 Filed 11/09/12 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 250
Case 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER Document 25 Filed 11/09/12 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 250 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PRIESTS FOR LIFE, Case No. 1:12-cv-00753-FB-RER
More informationNovember 5, Submitted electronically at Dear Assistant Director Seguin:
November 5, 2018 Debbie Seguin, Assistant Director Office of Policy, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department of Homeland Security 500 12 th Street SW Washington, DC 20563 Re: DHS Docket No.
More informationRe: The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Offi c e of 1/ie Assi \/a111 Atro/'111'\' General W"shi11g1011, D.C. 20530 December 15, 2016 Re: The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiffs,
CASE 0:13-cv-01375 Document 1 Filed 06/07/13 Page 1 of 49 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA SMA, LLC, MICHAEL BREY and STANLEY BREY, Civil File No. 13-CV-1375 Plaintiffs, vs KATHLEEN SEBELIUS,
More informationOn March 21, 2005, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Cutter v.
The Constitutional Status of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act Cutter v. Wilkinson On March 21, 2005, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Cutter v. Wilkinson (No. 03 9877),
More informationThe Coalition Against Religious Discrimination
The Coalition Against Religious Discrimination October 5, 2015 Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Department of Homeland Security 245 Murray Lane SW. Bldg. 410 Washington, DC 20528-0190 Attn:
More informationCase 3:18-cv MO Document 6 Filed 07/26/18 Page 1 of 8
Case 3:18-cv-01279-MO Document 6 Filed 07/26/18 Page 1 of 8 Lisa Hay, OSB No. 980628 Federal Public Defender Email: lisa_hay@fd.org Stephen R. Sady, OSB No. 81099 Chief Deputy Federal Defender Email: steve_sady@fd.org
More informationCase 5:13-cv ODS Document 1 Filed 10/08/13 Page 1 of 26
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI RANDY REED AUTOMOTIVE, INC.; ) ) RANDY REED BUICK GMC, INC.; ) ) RANDY REED CHEVROLET, LLC; ) ) RANDY REED NISSAN, LLC; and ) )
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
Nos. 14-1418, 14-1453, 14-1505, 15-35, 15-105, 15-119 & 15-191 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ZUBIK, DAVID A., ET AL., Petitioners, v. SYLVIA MATTHEWS BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES,
More informationLEGAL MEMORANDUM. mandate should prevail, vindicating. this nation s cherished right to freedom of conscience.
LEGAL MEMORANDUM Obama v. Religious Liberty: How Legal Challenges to the HHS Contraceptive Mandate Will Vindicate Every American s Right to Freedom of Religion John G. Malcolm No. 82 Abstract James Madison
More informationCase 2:17-cv WB Document 41 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:17-cv-04540-WB Document 41 Filed 12/08/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et
More informationOctober 15, By & U.S. Mail
(202) 466-3234 (202) 898-0955 (fax) www.au.org 1301 K Street, NW Suite 850, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 October 15, 2014 By Email & U.S. Mail Florida Department of Management Services Office of the
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT University of Notre Dame, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas E. Price, et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 13-3853 and Jane Doe 3 and Ann Doe, Intervenors-Appellees.
More informationRUTGERS JOURNAL OF LAW AND RELIGION
RUTGERS JOURNAL OF LAW AND RELIGION Volume 8.2 Spring 2007 Group Prescription Plans Must Cover Contraceptives: Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Serio 859 N.E.2d 459 (N.Y. 2006) By: Gerard
More informationLGBT Refugee Resettlement Guidelines / Agency Self-Assessment
LGBT Refugee Resettlement Guidelines / Agency Self-Assessment October 2013 This document is intended to serve two purposes; first, as a set of guidelines for Voluntary Agencies (VOLAGs) to use for determining
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2005 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationCOMPLAINT. Comes now Plaintiff Belmont Abbey College, by and through its attorneys, and states as
COMPLAINT Comes now Plaintiff Belmont Abbey College, by and through its attorneys, and states as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a challenge to regulations issued under the 2010 Affordable Care
More informationCase 1:13-cv RCL Document 1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 1 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:13-cv-01879-RCL Document 1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 1 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JOHN F. STEWART, 106 East Jefferson Street, La Grange, KY 40031 and ENCOMPASS DEVELOP,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA STATE OF NEBRASKA, by and through JON BRUNING, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, by and through ALAN WILSON, ATTORNEY
More information2:11-cv PMD Date Filed 09/19/11 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
2:11-cv-02516-PMD Date Filed 09/19/11 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and SOUTH
More informationThe Importance of the Attorney-Client Privilege, the Work Product Doctrine, and Employee Legal Rights
Adam J. Szubin, Director Office of Foreign Assets Control Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20220 Attn: Request for Comments (Enforcement Guidelines) Re: Preserving
More informationCase 1:13-cv EGS Document 32 Filed 12/16/13 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:13-cv-01261-EGS Document 32 Filed 12/16/13 Page 1 of 6 PRIESTS FOR LIFE, et al., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA -v- Plaintiffs, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
More informationHealth Care Law s Contraception Mandate Reaches the Supreme Court
Intro to Law Background Reading on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Free Exercise Case Key Terms: Strict Scrutiny, Substantial Burden, Compelling Government Interest, Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 Health
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 14-114 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States DAVID KING, ET AL., v. Petitioners, SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the
More informationNEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION TASK FORCE ON JUDICIAL SELECTION
New York County Lawyers Association 14 Vesey Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 267-6646 fax: (212) 406-9252 www.nycla.org NEW YORK COUNTY LAWYERS ASSOCIATION TASK FORCE ON JUDICIAL SELECTION COMMENTS AND
More informationRECOMMENDED CITATION: Pew Research Center, March 2014, Health Care Law s Contraception Mandate Reaches the Supreme Court
NUMBERS, FACTS AND TRENDS SHAPING THE WORLD FOR RELEASE MARCH 20, 2014 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS REPORT: Alan Cooperman, Director of Religion Research David Masci, Senior Researcher Katherine Ritchey,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
GROTE INDUSTRIES, LLC et al v. SEBELIUS et al Doc. 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DIVISION GROTE INDUSTRIES, LLC an Indiana limited liability company, GROTE INDUSTRIES,
More informationCase 1:12-cv Doc #1 Filed 10/08/12 Page 1 of 31 Page ID#1
Case 1:12-cv-01096 Doc #1 Filed 10/08/12 Page 1 of 31 Page ID#1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION AUTOCAM CORPORATION; AUTOCAM MEDICAL, LLC; JOHN
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
Nos. 14-1418, 14-1453, 14-1505, 15-35, 15-105, 15-119 & 15-191 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States ---------------------------------
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1436 In the Supreme Court of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 573 U. S. (2014) 1 SOTOMAYOR, Order in Pending J., dissenting Case SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 13A1284 WHEATON COLLEGE v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET
More informationCase 1:12-cv HSO-RHW Document 62 Filed 12/20/12 Page 1 of 15
Case 1:12-cv-00158-HSO-RHW Document 62 Filed 12/20/12 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION THE CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BILOXI, INC., et
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Association of Christian Schools International et al v. Burwell et al Doc. 27 Civil Action No. 14-cv-02966-PAB IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer ASSOCIATION
More informationCase 2:15-cv KJM-EFB Document 1 Filed 10/16/15 Page 1 of 16
Case :-cv-0-kjm-efb Document Filed // Page of 0 Kevin Theriot (Arizona Bar No. 00)* Erik Stanley (Arizona Bar No. 00)* Jeremiah Galus (Arizona Bar No. 00)* ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 0 N. 0 th Street Scottsdale,
More informationCase 3:16-cv LB Document 102 Filed 10/11/17 Page 1 of 13
Case :-cv-0-lb Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, v. Plaintiff, SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 1 0 1 Katherine Franke (pro hac vice pending Sulzbacher Professor of Law Columbia University W. th Street New York, NY 0..001 kfranke@law.columbia.edu James J. Belanger (Arizona Bar No. 01 JBELANGER
More informationCase: 1:13-cv Document #: 29 Filed: 08/14/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:429
Case: 1:13-cv-03292 Document #: 29 Filed: 08/14/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:429 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Martin Ozinga III, et al., Plaintiffs, No.
More informationThe HHS Contraception Mandate vs. the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Notre Dame Law Review Volume 87 Issue 5 Symposium: Educational Innovation and the Law Article 13 6-1-2012 The HHS Contraception Mandate vs. the Religious Freedom Restoration Act Edward Whelan Follow this
More informationAGENCY: Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Labor. SUMMARY: The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is
BILLING CODE: 4510-45 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 41 CFR parts 60-1 and 60-2 RIN 1250-ZA00 Interpretive Standards for Systemic Compensation Discrimination and Voluntary
More informationRELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT OF Joseph P. Williams Amy E. Souchuns Shipman & Goodwin LLP
RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT OF 2000 Joseph P. Williams Amy E. Souchuns Shipman & Goodwin LLP I. Introduction To the list of items given special consideration in land use law (such
More informationA Fluid Boundary: The Free Exercise Clause and the Legislative and Executive Branches. Courts have long grappled with questions of religious freedom,
RELIGION AND THE COURTS: THE PILLARS OF CHURCH-STATE LAW A Fluid Boundary: The Free Exercise Clause and the Legislative and Executive Branches OCTOBER 2008 Courts have long grappled with questions of religious
More informationNos , , , 15-35, , , &
Nos. 14-1418, 14-1453, 14-1505, 15-35, 15-105, 15-119, & 15-191 IN THE LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR HOME FOR THE AGED, DENVER COLORADO, ET AL. Petitioners, v. SYLVIA MATTHEWS BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH
More information1. The Obama Administration unilaterally granted a one-year delay on all Obamacare health insurance requirements.
THE LEGAL LIMIT: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION S ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND FEDERAL POWER Report No. 2: The Administration s Lawless Acts on Obamacare and Continued Court Challenges to Obamacare By U.S. Senator Ted
More informationCase 1:14-cv APM Document 24 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 1:14-cv-01311-APM Document 24 Filed 03/10/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, v. Plaintiff, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 15-105 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States LITTLE SISTERS OF THE POOR HOME FOR THE AGED, DENVER, COLORADO, ET AL., Petitioners, v. SYLVIA MATTHEWS BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES,
More informationJAMES DOE, Plaintiff, v. VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 7:18-cv-320
JAMES DOE, Plaintiff, v. VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 7:18-cv-320 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE
More informationA Progressive Vision of Religious Liberty Preserves the Rights and Freedoms of All Americans
AP PHOTO/EVAN VUCCI Restoring the Balance A Progressive Vision of Religious Liberty Preserves the Rights and Freedoms of All Americans By Carolyn J. Davis, Laura E. Durso, and Carmel Martin with Donna
More informationPUBLIC RIGHTS PRIVATE CONSCIENCE PROJECT
RFRA FAQ What is a RFRA? RFRA stands for Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The original RFRA was a federal law signed by President Clinton in 1993. Many state RFRA bills have been enacted over the ensuing
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
Case :-cv-000-h-dhb Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 0 SKYLINE WESLEYAN CHURCH, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGED HEALTH CARE, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff,
More informationGOD AND THE LAW: THE RELIGION CLAUSES OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION. Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University Fall 2016
Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University Fall 2016 William H. Hurd Adjunct Professor william.hurd@troutmansanders.com Congress shall make no law respecting an Establishment of Religion or prohibiting
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
Nos. 14-1418, 14-1453, 14-1505, 15-35, 15-105, 15-119, & 15-191 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States ---------------------------------
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. v. Case No. 1:13-CV-1247 OPINION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MICHIGAN CATHOLIC CONFERENCE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 1:13-CV-1247 KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, et al., HON. GORDON J.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before LUCERO, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit April 8, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiff - Appellee,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT FRANK R. O BRIEN JR., et al., ) ) APPELLANTS, ) ) vs. ) CASE NO. 12-3357 ) U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN ) SERVICES, et al., ) ) ) APPELLEES.
More information